Protestanism: a great heresy

[Lisa4Catholics]

CatholicCrusade:

It’s not up to us to decide… the Church has constantly said that when Christ said: “He who is not with me IS AGAINST ME, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth” means that those outside the Church are automatically against Christ, since they are not with him. You would have it that Christ is contradicting Himself. No. He does not, and the Church has never attributed what is said in that passage to mean that those outside the Church are with Christ unless they specifically make themselves against Him (e.g. prots would be for Him). NO. He said: He who is not with me is against me!

I would not have Christ contradicting Himself I quoted a scripture and asked a question. There are some non-Catholics who truly hate Our Holy Church, but most only hate what they think Our Holy Church is. As someone who was not lucky enough to have been raised Catholic, and have been around non-catholics all my life,I can attest to the fact that most fear the Church because of what they have been taught She is! These threads are going to run off people who might just be searching to find out what is true,and that is not right.How are you going to instruct or share in dialog about Holy Mother Church if they see this kind of thing?God Bless

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

CatholicCrusade:

If by “technicality” you mean: following what He taught, then YES, by all means He will send to hell all those who do not follow this “technicality”, which he ordained many times in His own life as well as through His Vicars on earth.

Which infallible pronouncement of the Magisterium defined that those who are ‘invincibly ignorant’ could be saved? I recall quite the contrary:

“We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 52:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1) To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch*.*” - Blessed Pope Pius IX

So what you are saying is these people doing the best they know to do with the graces God has given and being ignorant of the truth will be cast to hell?Sounds just and loving to me God Bless

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Lisa4Catholics:

So what you are saying is these people doing the best they know to do with the graces God has given and being ignorant of the truth will be cast to hell?Sounds just and loving to me God Bless

If unbaptized, yes. But God would not leave such a person who is truly invincibly ignorant without Baptism. He would provide for that person the Sacrament and unity to the Church of which no one is exempt.

St. Thomas Aquinas says that God would even send an angel, if necessary, to a person who is truly invincibly ignorant, if otherwise the person would die without Baptism and unity to the Church.

For a person to be invincibly ignorant, he must be living according to Natural Law. Natural Law encompasses the Ten Commandments with the exception of the Third. So, except for keeping holy the Sabbath, anyone who is not living up to these commands is not invincibly ignorant, since they persist in an unnatural state, a state opposed to natural law. Therefore, it is necessary that a person be a monotheist in order to be saved and follow the Ten Commandments and the dicates of his conscience. If such a person even exists, he most likely falls into grave sin. If he does not, then God will provide him a means to the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas also taught that all are bound to explicit faith in at least four things in order to be saved: that God exists (which is a part of natural law), that God is Remunerator (rewarder), in the Incarnation, and in the Blessed Trinity. So, if a person does not explicitly believe these things, he cannot be saved. The person (or if needed an angel) would need to baptize the ignorant person and teach him at least these four things (certainly not the first, since he would already believe that, and possibly not the second either).

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

CatholicCrusade:

If unbaptized, yes. But God would not leave such a person who is truly invincibly ignorant without Baptism. He would provide for that person the Sacrament and unity to the Church of which no one is exempt.

St. Thomas Aquinas says that God would even send an angel, if necessary, to a person who is truly invincibly ignorant, if otherwise the person would die without Baptism and unity to the Church.

For a person to be invincibly ignorant, he must be living according to Natural Law. Natural Law encompasses the Ten Commandments with the exception of the Third. So, except for keeping holy the Sabbath, anyone who is not living up to these commands is not invincibly ignorant, since they persist in an unnatural state, a state opposed to natural law. Therefore, it is necessary that a person be a monotheist in order to be saved and follow the Ten Commandments and the dicates of his conscience. If such a person even exists, he most likely falls into grave sin. If he does not, then God will provide him a means to the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas also taught that all are bound to explicit faith in at least four things in order to be saved: that God exists (which is a part of natural law), that God is Remunerator (rewarder), in the Incarnation, and in the Blessed Trinity. So, if a person does not explicitly believe these things, he cannot be saved. The person (or if needed an angel) would need to baptize the ignorant person and teach him at least these four things (certainly not the first, since he would already believe that, and possibly not the second either).

Then we are on the same page But, you see if you do not explain these possitions clearly,people who are honest in their search will think that we are portraying God as mean, spitefull and unjust.That would do a disservice to God. My grandparents who spent their life for Christ,but thought all these lies about the Church were true, because of some of these ex-catholics(if they were) were intent on spreading lies and misinformation for whatever reason(probably a diabolic “inspiration”)which would have people believe you might as well go to a church of satan:banghead: God will have the last say on that and he will instruct the ignorant who by no fault of their own,didn’t find their way home to Holy Mother Church. PM me and I will let you know what God did for my dad who was dying of cancer,scared to death I was going to hell and taking my children with me,because I had become Catholic with my children,you will see his mercy as well as his justice. God Bless

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

CatholicCrusade:

If unbaptized, yes. But God would not leave such a person who is truly invincibly ignorant without Baptism. He would provide for that person the Sacrament and unity to the Church of which no one is exempt.

St. Thomas Aquinas says that God would even send an angel, if necessary, to a person who is truly invincibly ignorant, if otherwise the person would die without Baptism and unity to the Church.

For a person to be invincibly ignorant, he must be living according to Natural Law. Natural Law encompasses the Ten Commandments with the exception of the Third. So, except for keeping holy the Sabbath, anyone who is not living up to these commands is not invincibly ignorant, since they persist in an unnatural state, a state opposed to natural law. Therefore, it is necessary that a person be a monotheist in order to be saved and follow the Ten Commandments and the dicates of his conscience. If such a person even exists, he most likely falls into grave sin. If he does not, then God will provide him a means to the Church.

St. Thomas Aquinas also taught that all are bound to explicit faith in at least four things in order to be saved: that God exists (which is a part of natural law), that God is Remunerator (rewarder), in the Incarnation, and in the Blessed Trinity. So, if a person does not explicitly believe these things, he cannot be saved. The person (or if needed an angel) would need to baptize the ignorant person and teach him at least these four things (certainly not the first, since he would already believe that, and possibly not the second either).

Hold on I may have misread your thread. Are you saying that a protestant by birth who knows nothing but lies about Holy Mother Church could not be considered one who is truly ignorant?

 

[CatholicCrusade]

Lisa4Catholics:

Hold on I may have misread your thread. Are you saying that a protestant by birth who knows nothing but lies about Holy Mother Church could not be considered one who is truly ignorant?

He may be truly ignorant, but that ignorance could not save him. See the message I sent you.

 

[TheGarg]

Gottle of Geer:

As for “failing the Church” - our basic vocation as Christians is, to Christ; not to His Church. The Mystical Body is subject to the Glorified Redeemer; it is not in every respect identical with Him, but is in His service. If they were the very same in all respects without exception, we would be left with the Incarnation of the Church, the Passion of the Church, and we would be receiving the Body of the Church in the Eucharist. No - the Church (= us, not just the clergy) is always failing Christ, and is always in need of forgiveness; is holy, and in constant need of repentance. Because the Church is incompletely holy, yet is also holy with the holiness of Christ.

It is because He takes priority over His Church, that we must seek Him, when the Church’s authorities do not provide the “food in due season” that they ought to. He has made us fir Himself - only secondarily for His Mystical Body. We are not the property of the clergy or of the Church, but of Christ. So our ultimate and unreserved obedience must be to Christ - not to Church authority. ##

I can’t beleive half the ideas that you come up with. YOU talk
Gottle of Geer:

about unreserved obedience must be to Christ

yet you reject his Word**, and the Church He started. Do you think Christ started the Church for kicks, so maybe its Important???

Matthew 16:18-20
"18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it**.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

You are wrong in your statements of compromise, which is an evil thing[compromise], and I would advise you to seriously re-evaluate what you think know to be true, because it’s not.

You are seriously misleading people with your OPINIONS, as most protestants do. Christ cannot be seperated from hist Church, as you are trying to do.

The Church has absolute authority, as per the Word** of Christ. Refute it, disagree, cry about it, spin it how you want, it doesn’t change the fact of the Church’s power, and to Denounce His Church is to denounce Him.

Pride is the undoer of all good things, and probably the root of all Evil. That is why I humbly submit[no pride, not my will but Christ’s will be done] to the Church, who operate with Christ’s authority!

Peace of the Lord be with you all

 

[JGC]

CatholicCrusade:

He may be truly ignorant, but that ignorance could not save him. See the message I sent you.

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

Chapter 1

3.The children who are born into these (separated) Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection.** For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.**

 

[mlchance]

josiah:

My friend. I don’t have tradition.

Yes, you do.

The idea that infants can’t be baptised is part of your tradition. The idea that there is no such thing as Tradition is also part of your tradition (and one that is quite contrary to Scripture as well).

Your claim to follow only the Bible is disengenuous at best because the “spin” you put on the Bible is indeed part of a tradition.

Now, then, on what authority is your tradition based? It can’t be on the authority of Scripture alone, since Scripture is not self-interpreting, as is demonstrated by Scripture itself.

Why should anyone, including yourself, consider your tradition authoritative?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

josiah:

I’ve read some other posts that refer to the baptizing of infants, which is more of an issue of what comes first. Belief then baptism or Baptism then belief.

Now, I know that all of us would agree that Scripture is inerrant.

== Well, um…er…not really - it is at least highly questionable whether it is. ISTM that it has been preserved and interpreted in a manner sufficient for general religious purposes ==

I struggle with the Traditions that conflict with Scripture. I know that some of you have taken the passages in ACTS and still believe that it was HOUSEHOLDS (including infants that were baptized). But, there is one passage that no one has commented on yet.

Act 8:36-38 (36) And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?(37) Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.(38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.

I think this is an explicit statement. Philip said “IF you believe then it is lawful”. Philip places a condition here.

To say that there are other passages of scripture that explicitly or implicitly condone baptism before belief contradicts this statement. The result is we no longer have an inerrant text.

God bless

Josiah

== Acts 8.37 is a late addition, probably to be explained by post-Apostolic developments in theology. ==

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

MarkInOregon:

Gottle,

I’ve been meaning to ask–what do the ## mean in your posts? Thanks.

Regarding infant baptisms and assumptions–did you see post 137? Specifically the quotes from Hippolytus AD 215 and Origen AD 248–while not first century they are still very early quotes testifying to the practice are they not?

The peace of Christ be with you.
Mark

== Those things are to mark my comments as my comments, so that my nonsense does not get confused with someone else’s wise remarks

As for the other thing - Hippolytus and Origen don’t represent the Jerusalem Church of the earliest period; they represent the Church after it had moved out of its original Jewish setting; and it is this setting, not a later one, which is really important for how Baptism was first understood. We won’t really see the earliest ideas about Baptism as clearly as we might, if we ignore the earliest available evidence.

For the earliest ideas about Christian Baptism - look, if possible, at the evidence from the earliest churches in their earliest practice. ==

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

TheGarg:

I can’t beleive half the ideas that you come up with. YOU talk

yet you reject his Word**, and the Church He started. Do you think Christ started the Church for kicks, so maybe its Important???

== I reject neither - so why are you saying I do ? You don’t even know me, nor do I know you ==

Matthew 16:18-20
"18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it**.[c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

You are wrong in your statements of compromise, which is an evil thing[compromise], and I would advise you to seriously re-evaluate what you think know to be true, because it’s not.

You are seriously misleading people with your OPINIONS, as most protestants do. Christ cannot be seperated from hist Church, as you are trying to do. == As if Catholics never did

What are we posting, if not our opinions, at least in part? And what have Protestants to do with this topic ? Are you Protestant ? OK.

Where do you see compromise ? Sometimes, compromise is the only course of action, if one is to avoid the unreality of fanaticism.

I’m not separating Him from His Church at all - but He is its Lord, nor its slave nor attack-dog nor a guarantee of the unfailing righteousness of all its acts. To identify the infinite God with what He has created, is sheer atheism; because it makes it impossible to apeal to the Creator - one is unable to go up higher than a created thing. God is faithful to His Church - but not confined to His Church, let alone shackled by it. The Biblical authors made this confuson at times - but others realised what a poor idea of God was implied by this confusion ==

The Church has absolute

authority, as per the Word** of Christ. Refute it, disagree, cry about it, spin it how you want, it doesn’t change the fact of the Church’s power, and to Denounce His Church is to denounce Him. == There is nothing markedly Christian in having power. There is something paroadoxical and astonishing in how Christ exercised power - He didn’t. He exercised it by rejecting it when it was offerred to Him, for He had come to do His Father’s Will, and therefore to be crucified. He is a king, certainly - but the throne He chose was the Cross. That is how He reigns. It is not always how the Church has always reigned in Him.

I am not denouncing the Church - I am merely aware that the Church cannot in all respects be equated with Christ. Refusing to idolise or absolutise the Church, is not the same as denouncing or finding fault with her. Equate the Church with her Creator - and the scandals in her become good and holy; IOW, morality is perverted, & the Gospel with it, if one makes no distincton between the two at all.

These exaggerations are not valid descriptions of the Church, but exaggerations; and the Church’s own teaching leaves no place for them. The Church was not born of Mary, did not die upon the Cross, was not raised in glory from the dead; nor do we eat the Sacramental Body of the Church.

The Church is not a totalitarian state, even though some have tried to make her so. To deify the Church, is to pervert it - and I don’t want to, nor would anybody want to. ==

Pride is the undoer of all good things, and probably the root of all Evil. That is why I humbly

submit[no pride, not my will but Christ’s will be done] to the Church, who operate with Christ’s authority!

Peace of the Lord be with you all== And also with you ==

 

[TheGarg]

== I reject neither - so why are you saying I do ? You don’t even know me, nor do I know you ==

I don’t need to know you; you’re putting your beliefs right out there for me to see.

If you reject the Church, which Christ established, then you reject Him; it is an all or nothing deal. That is why I assume your protestant, because you imply that it is ok to pick and choose what you want to believe.
Gottle of Geer:
== As if Catholics never did

I am not concerned with “Catholics” or what they have done; I am discussing the Catholic Church.
Gottle of Geer:
What are we posting, if not our opinions, at least in part? And what have Protestants to do with this topic? Are you Protestant? OK.

You are right, I will stick to denouncing Protestantism and all its theologies. Hate the sin, Love the sinner.

QUOTE=Gottle of Geer]

Where do you see compromise ? Sometimes, compromise is the only course of action, if one is to avoid the unreality of fanaticism.

Anytime someone undoes what Christ has done, that is compromise. Protestantism undoes what Christ had done. Christ died a fanatical death for the love of His Father, and all of us; his Apostles also died fanatical deaths for their belief in Him and teaching what He taught them.

Compromise is never a good thing when it comes to God. We don’t barter with him, or make deal, it’s His way or the highway (hell).

cont’d to next post

 

[TheGarg]

cont’d from previous reply
Gottle of Geer:
I’m not separating Him from His Church at all - but He is its Lord, nor its slave nor attack-dog nor a guarantee of the unfailing righteousness of all its acts. To identify the infinite God with what He has created, is sheer atheism; because it makes it impossible to apeal to the Creator - one is unable to go up higher than a created thing. God is faithful to His Church - but not confined to His Church, let alone shackled by it. The Biblical authors made this confuson at times - but others realised what a poor idea of God was implied by this confusion ==

== There is nothing markedly Christian in having power. There is something paroadoxical and astonishing in how Christ exercised power - He didn’t. He exercised it by rejecting it when it was offerred to Him, for He had come to do His Father’s Will, and therefore to be crucified. He is a king, certainly - but the throne He chose was the Cross. That is how He reigns. It is not always how the Church has always reigned in Him.

Here is my point, yes you are separating Christ and His Church, and that is certainly heresy. You are half right, Christ is the Head of his Church, but the pecking order doesn’t stop there; then comes the faithful of His Church. Lets Review: Christ => Church => Us (faithful)

Matthew 16:18-20[note bold faced red font, that would be Jesus himself giving his Church all the authority of Heaven to govern the Church body {us, the faithful}]
"18And I tell you that you are Peter, [a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it****. [c] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
Gottle of Geer:
I am not denouncing the Church - I am merely aware that the Church cannot in all respects be equated with Christ. Refusing to idolise or absolutise the Church, is not the same as denouncing or finding fault with her. Equate the Church with her Creator - and the scandals in her become good and holy; IOW, morality is perverted, & the Gospel with it, if one makes no distincton between the two at all.

You need to learn to differentiate between “The Church” and “The people in the Church”. You HAVE to equate the Church with Christ, why??? Because He created the Church, and ONLY GOOD and HOLY things come from Christ. The scandals that arise IN the Church are not OF the Church; they are of men, lowly men who are not perfect and make mistakes, who will have to atone for those things.
Gottle of Geer:
These exaggerations are not valid descriptions of the Church, but exaggerations; and the Church’s own teaching leaves no place for them. The Church was not born of Mary, did not die upon the Cross, was not raised in glory from the dead; nor do we eat the Sacramental Body of the Church.

Christ was born of Mary, and the Church was born of Christ.
Gottle of Geer:
The Church is not a totalitarian state, even though some have tried to make her so. To deify the Church, is to pervert it - and I don’t want to, nor would anybody want to. ==

The Church is absolutely a totalitarian state, and I assure it is definitely not a democracy! You do have the free will to reject it, but that will certainly lead to death.

To think it fanatical to have absolute faith and to die for that faith is lukewarm.

Revelations 3:16 “16’So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth”

Peace of the Lord be with you, and have a Blessed Christmas and Happy New Year!**

 

[StubbleSpark]

Josiah,

You ignored my post.

 

[josiah]

StubbleSpark:

Josiah,

You made a really good comment with your choice of verses showing that people had to believe first and then be baptized. This is true. But you overplayed your hand when you said this means that infants cannot be baptized because of they are too young.

Baptism is meant for humans, even the very young and the very severely mentally disabled who also cannot rightly express their faith in God.

You know, the Church agrees with you! If you go to an Easter service where new adults are initiated into the Catholic faith, they HAVE to make a profession of faith, and to denounce Satan BEFORE baptism. This is because they are being baptized after they have reached the infamous “age of consent.”

The same thing happens during an infant baptism, only it is the parents and the godparents who make the pledge to raise their children as devout believers. They take sacred oaths like in a wedding and the saving baptism is then preformed. But if the parents do not take the oath, then the child is not baptized. Just like in Sacred Scripture.
.

Stubble…
I believe the issue at hand really comes down to this…Does Baptism having any saving power within itself? Or is Baptism symbolic of an inward belief/commitment?

 

[RSiscoe]

josiah:

Stubble…
I believe the issue at hand really comes down to this…Does Baptism having any saving power within itself? Or is Baptism symbolic of an inward belief/commitment?

Baptism does have a saving power, in that through it one becomes “born again” and obtains the state of justification. But this does not apply to a heretic. If a Christian becomes a heretic they thereby immediatley lose the grace they obtained in baptism; and if someone who is already a heretic is baptised, they never receive the grace.

A heretic is one who rejects a truth of Christianity. The religion of Protestants is founded on a rejection of MANY truths of Christianity. If an individual Protestant believes what his religion teaches, then he rejects a truth of Christianity and does not obtain the grace of the sacrament, but only the “character” (or “mark” as St. Paul puts it) that baptism imprints upon the soul.

The Bible tell us that “a man that is a heretic is… condemned by his own judgment” (Titus 3:10,11).

You are probably completely sincere in your desire to follow Jesus. If that is the case, it should be very easy for you to see the truths of Catholicism when you look into it.

 

[MichaelLewis]

For what it’s worth, I can understand your position Marineboy. Obviously, given that you believe (consistent with church teachings, I gather) that it is much easier for one to escape Hell if one is in full communion with the Catholic Church, you think that Catholics should feel a greater anxiety on behalf of those outside the Church than is displayed here. When I was an evangelical protestant I felt a similar anxiety about those who weren’t “saved”. Certainly, it was wise to not turn people off, but the POINT of not turning them off was to get them to listen and take the salvation message seriously. A lot more was at stake than hurt feelings or discomfort. From this perspective, it seemed unloving not to stick one’s neck out and risk offending someone.

        That being said, your situation is a little different, insofar as you would not deny that Protestants have SOME share in the Church.  When you call them heretics (however accurate that designation might be) and emphasize the differences you have with them, you very likely send the message that “The spiritual life you have now is worthless.”  Of course, any devout person is going to be repelled by that suggestion.  But as a Catholic, you believe that Protestants DO have some genuine connection with the Church, which they don’t recognize as such, right?  If that is the case, by seeming to trash their Christianity, don’t you trash their *experience* of the Church (though they don’t know it as such)?  If, on the other hand, you made sure they understood that you are offering them MORE of what they have already, (and perhaps emphasized that they really NEED more) you would honor the Church *as they have already experienced it*, and be more likely to help draw them into full communion.

        This is an outsider’s perspective, but I hope I’ve learned Catholic theology well enough to have reasoned soundly here.

Michael

 

[Exporter]

Marineboy’s first post contained this.
“When u think about Protestanism and other Religions you have to say that the truths of there religions are correct in so far as they agree with Catholisicm…Protestants have no truth apart form the Catholic church…i find it remarkable that just because the new catechism uses “nice” language towards Protestanism that many Catholics, including those on this forum, want to turn a blind eye to Protestanism as a heresy… Protestanism has led many souls away from Christ and needs to be destroyed…”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I have to agree with Marineboy. He is only being succinct and distinct". He is being truthful. He does not use femine language, his language cannot be mistaken. He is saying what he means. Marine boy says what the Bishops would say if they were pinned down and told the truth.

Over the past 4 to 5 years I hesitate to tell someone I am Catholic. On three occasions I have been laughed at, derided and have been told I was a liar by Protestants.

BTW, this thread was not designed to be a “missionary page” to Protestants who by mistake have wandered onto a Catholic Forum. This is a Catholic Forum first and formost. Not an apologetic Forum to make Protestants feel good.

 

[robertjohn]

This is a very sad thread which merely states/confirms that you can be attending mass regularly and not be a Catholic Christian. I would strongly suggest you repent of your sins of inciting hatred towards others.